Scotts defends decision to seek GE bentgrass deregulation
ONTARIO, Ore. — USDA officials have defended their Jan. 17 decision to deregulate a genetically engineered creeping bentgrass that escaped field trials in 2003 and has taken root in two Oregon counties and a small part of one Idaho county.
And Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., which created the grass, defended its decision to seek a deregulated status for the grass despite agreeing not to commercialize it.
Environmental groups, on the other hand, continue to harshly criticize USDA’s decision to deregulate the creeping bentgrass, which was developed by Scotts and Monsanto Corp. to withstand applications of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer.
Rick Coker, a USDA public affairs specialist, told Capital Press in an email the department must, under the Plant Protection Act, respond to any petition that requests a determination of regulatory status for a genetically engineered organism.
USDA’s decision must be based on whether the organism is likely to pose a plant pest risk, he said. If the department determines it does not, it “has no legal basis to continue to regulate that GE organism and must deregulate (it).”
After escaping field trials, the bentgrass took root in Malheur and Jefferson counties in Oregon and part of Canyon County in Idaho.
Scotts reached a 10-year memorandum of agreement and memorandum of understanding with USDA in 2015 that lays out the company’s continued responsibilities for helping control the bentgrass.
As part of the agreement, the company has agreed not to commercialize the plant, which was being developed for use on golf courses.
Jim King, senior vice president of corporate affairs for Scotts, said the golf course industry has changed dramatically since the company started developing the plant and the marketplace for that product is no longer viable and shrinking.
“Economically, it makes no sense to commercialize it,” he said.
The company opted to continue to pursue deregulation because it felt it needed an answer from USDA on whether a product Scotts invested tens of millions of dollars in should be approved, King said.
USDA has a regulatory road map that allow companies such as Scotts that are in the business of innovation to know if a certain product should be approved, he said.
“We had a legitimate petition in front of USDA, we wanted an answer and they finally provided the answer,” he said.
Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program, said the decision to deregulate the bentgrass means the agreements covering the control of the escaped crop are no longer valid.
She pointed out that the word “regulated” appears before “glyphosate tolerant creeping bentgrass” each time Scotts responsibilities are laid out in the agreements.
The responsibilities “apply exclusively to regulated (bentgrass),” she said.
But even if that’s not the case, she said, the agreements only require Scotts to take minimal action.
Burd said USDA’s decision leaves her group no choice but to explore legal options to challenge it.
The agreements require the company in 2017 and 2018 to provide technical assistance to affected farmers and irrigation districts and provide incentives for the adoption of best management practices to control the grass.
Scotts will pull back a little after that but still continue to analyze the situation, educate growers and provide technical assistance.
Coker said the agreements “remain in effect regardless of the deregulated status of (the grass) because the compliance incidents predated the deregulation.”
King said Scotts will honor the agreements “and, if we have to, we’ll do more. We consider those to be documents that were negotiated in good faith .. and we have every intention of living up to everything we said we were going to do.”